Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI), three-dimensional (3D) printing, and pharmacogenomics are coming together to change the pharmaceutical development, but most of the published reviews treat these technologies in isolation. This narrative review explains how these three domains interact all through the drug discovery-to-delivery process and tries to identify the scientific, regulatory and ethical requirements for their integration. AI-driven approaches will help in accelerating drug discovery by identifying targets, generating molecular candidates, and predicting drug-target interactions. However, less than 20% of identified lead molecules tend to cross Phase I trials, which show that there are many gaps in generalization across different domains. Additive manufacturing helps us develop personalized dosage forms for paediatric doses and orphan disease therapies but the thermal degradation of active pharmaceutical ingredients takes place and limited scalability lead to non-selection. In Pharmacogenomics, the genetic variations is backbone for selection of dosing, but it is affected by bias in genomic datasets, and a phenomenon called clinician alert fatigue. To tackle such problems, the critical points of investigation include head-to-head clinical trials linking 3D-printed outputs to therapeutic outcomes, validation of AI algorithms based on independent datasets, and multi-disciplinary pharmacogenomic datasets. In this review, a new conceptual integration framework is proposed so that we can learn to illustrate how AI, additive manufacturing, and pharmacogenomics can operate by complementing across the pharmaceutical lifecycle. The successful translation of this idea will require collaboration at various levels among discovery scientists, manufacturing engineers, clinicians, and informaticians to deliver personalized therapies within less development timelines for improved patient outcomes, and equal access to all people.
Doneparthi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: